Categorizing Organizations (and Individuals!)

- / -

Explanation

This is in celebration of those who believe that we need organizations
with more "heart" -- it is also in memory of those who believed that it
would be good if they were based on better "heads", "new thinking" and
"paradigm shifts".

The columns of the table (below) are derived primarily from the
traditional chakra system -- but with the addition of "feet". However
it derives its primary interest from the metaphoric
meanings associated with each chakra in common discourse
-- as typified by "heartless", "gutless", "spiritless", etc. The columns
might also be clustered into Head (A, B,C), Thorax (D, E) and Abdomen (F,
G, H).

The rows of the table each correspond to a particular type of
organization (or individual!) -- by taking a noteworthy combination of
one of the chakras. So, for example, Type 1 (B+D-) describes the
"heartless head" organizations that have received so much criticism. Type
2 (B-D+), however, describes the "headless heart" organizations that have
been caricatured as "luvvies".

Type #1: Heartless heads: These are the organizations,
perceived as technocratic, that seem to operate on the assumption that
the feelings of people are irrelevant to the imposition of theoretical
and ideological frameworks. They tend to assume that by discovering the
appropriate "model" resources can be appropriately mobilized to solve the
problems of the world.

Type #2: Headless hearts: These are
the organizations that operate on the assumption that if love took precedence
over all other consideration then the challenges of modern society could
be appropriately met and peace would prevail. They tend to reject the need
for any thoughtful consideration of constraints and possibilities. All
such details are swept away in a tide of love and for this reason they
have been caricatured as "luvvies".

Type #3: Headless feet: These are organizations
firmly oriented towards their "feet on the ground" members. They emphasize
experience above everthing and have little regard for "egg head" approaches.
Examples are to be found amongst mass movements, trade unions and peoples
organizations -- especially those that reject any institutional structure.

Type #4: Gutless heads: These are the organizations
that are remarkably capable of articulating the issues in sophisticated
frameworks but are totally gutless when it comes to doing anything. They
are typically caricatured by terms such as "gutless egg heads" or the like.

Type #5: Heartless guts: These are the organizations
that take remarkable risks in undertaking new initiatives but without any
consideration of the feelings of those their actions affect. Many entrepreneurial
businesses are preceived in this way -- as well as organizations operating
on the legal margins or even illegally. Security forces and paramilitary
organizations may be perceived in this light.

Type #6: Spiritless heads: These are the
organizations perceived to be totally lacking in any spiritual framework,
placing knowledge above wisdom or other values and principles.

Type #7: Gutless spirits: These are the organizations
totally imbued with spiritual wisdom and orientation, but totally lacking
in guts when it comes to dealing with reality. They operate best when not
challenged by constraints requiring unpleasant decisions.

Type #8: Feetless spirits: These are the
organizations that are graced with the highest insights but are quite unable
to ground their insights in reality or amongst ordinary people.

Type #9: Headless chatterers: These are the
organizations that provide a vehicle for those caricatured as the "chattering
classes". Typically they provide a vehicle for extensive discussion and "dialogue" but relatively unconstrained by thoughtful reflection. They
are the rumour-mongerers who serve the valuable function of disseminating
certain types of information.

Type #10: Talking heads: These are the organizations
that provide a vehicle for the eminent and the knowledgeable to exchange
insights. They may involve organization of major conferences and summits.
Typically they are caricatured in the light of their track record as "all
talk and no action".

Type #11: Sexless hearts: These are the
organizations that are acknowledged for their paramount caring qualities,
but are also recognized to be totally unattractive -- notably to young
people. They might also be termed "sexless carers".

Type #12....
Beyond isolated caricatures

Clearly more complex types would be characterized by more than two columns.

But more interesting than the detection of isolated types is the recognition
of how these different types work together. This can occur in several ways:

organizations of different types can work together through a coalition,
complementing each other and compensating for their respective inadequacies.

a particular organization can, over time, take on roles corresponding to
different types, thus compensating for the inadequacies of any given role

within a particular organization, departments can be characterized by different
types (typically, for example, the "human relations" section will endeavour
to demonstrate more "heart" than the production section; similarly the
security section will demonstrate more "guts" than the research section)

The columns in the table may then be understood more like the "holes" on
a musical wind instrument (eg a flute or a recorder) that may be open or
closed -- when a characteristic is expressed or repressed. More complex
"chords" would be generated by types based on combinations of more than
two columns from the table.

But still more interesting is the possibility that an organization,
or a coalition of organizations, may endeavour to "play" on the different
characteristics -- effectively generating a "tune" or "melody" with complex
"chords". In this sense the art of governance lies in composing such melodies
and being able to execute them with the active participation of all concerned
-- perhaps in larger works that would resemble "operas" or "symphonies"
rather than simple "folk tunes". From this perspective it might be
argued that the alienating characteristic of many organizations -- especially
for young people -- is that they are truly monotonous. Of course, others
would argue that what we have at the moment already resembles "music hall
shows" more than anything else.